Why can't we blow up an NEO on collision course
Discussion
jmorgan said:
Thought the perceived wisdom at the moment is deflection, considering the requirements and extra risks with explosion. If there was a bomb big enough.
Edit.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-first-asteroid...
Looks like they are testing something.
First you have to find the rogue asteroid!Edit.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-s-first-asteroid...
Looks like they are testing something.
Edited by jmorgan on Sunday 4th February 10:13
https://groups.yahoo.com/neo/groups/mpml/info
Derek Smith said:
Monty Python said:
Big problem is that nuclear missiles are designed to fly a parabolic trajectory - they have very limited ability to steer outside the atmosphere. You'd also need direct hit - even a near miss would have little effect.
We've landed on a comet. I think that the Everest comparison is a good one. Imagine if we dropped 10 nukes on Everest, when the dust settled, I would put good money on the mountain looking pretty much unscathed.
If we drilled 10 holes in Everest and buried the nukes then when the dust settled we would probably have broken some chunks off but now you just end up with an smaller Everest surrounded by enormous chunks of rock. It's still going to smart if it lands on your head.
The solution would appear to be to try to alter the trajectory of the asteroid not blow it up. Perhaps nukes could be exploded in its path to try to slow it fractionally or exploded to one side to nudge its path again, only fractionally, but at these sorts of distances fractions matter.
Now all we need to do is identify the object far enough away to divert, find a way to get the nukes to the right place, etc etc.
If we drilled 10 holes in Everest and buried the nukes then when the dust settled we would probably have broken some chunks off but now you just end up with an smaller Everest surrounded by enormous chunks of rock. It's still going to smart if it lands on your head.
The solution would appear to be to try to alter the trajectory of the asteroid not blow it up. Perhaps nukes could be exploded in its path to try to slow it fractionally or exploded to one side to nudge its path again, only fractionally, but at these sorts of distances fractions matter.
Now all we need to do is identify the object far enough away to divert, find a way to get the nukes to the right place, etc etc.
MKnight702 said:
I think that the Everest comparison is a good one. Imagine if we dropped 10 nukes on Everest, when the dust settled, I would put good money on the mountain looking pretty much unscathed.
If we drilled 10 holes in Everest and buried the nukes then when the dust settled we would probably have broken some chunks off but now you just end up with an smaller Everest surrounded by enormous chunks of rock. It's still going to smart if it lands on your head.
The solution would appear to be to try to alter the trajectory of the asteroid not blow it up. Perhaps nukes could be exploded in its path to try to slow it fractionally or exploded to one side to nudge its path again, only fractionally, but at these sorts of distances fractions matter.
Now all we need to do is identify the object far enough away to divert, find a way to get the nukes to the right place, etc etc.
Why would a nuke, exploded in the path of a NEO, have any effect on it's trajectory or speed at all?If we drilled 10 holes in Everest and buried the nukes then when the dust settled we would probably have broken some chunks off but now you just end up with an smaller Everest surrounded by enormous chunks of rock. It's still going to smart if it lands on your head.
The solution would appear to be to try to alter the trajectory of the asteroid not blow it up. Perhaps nukes could be exploded in its path to try to slow it fractionally or exploded to one side to nudge its path again, only fractionally, but at these sorts of distances fractions matter.
Now all we need to do is identify the object far enough away to divert, find a way to get the nukes to the right place, etc etc.
Derek Smith said:
I was watching a programme about near Earth objects. I was told that there was no point in blowing up an NEO the size of Everest as the bits would still hit Earth with all the energy of the original object.
OK, I get that. It’s obvious. No kinetic energy disappears.
However, surely the damage would be likely to be less. The smaller lumps would burn up in the atmosphere; still dangerous but unlikely to cause much damage. If, say, three lumps were big enough to hit the Earth, or perhaps explode near the ground, the detritus would not go as high in the atmosphere as a single object and so no ‘nuclear’ winter nor extinction event.
Also comets, if they are just ice and dirt held together by nothing more than friendship, would react well to being blown apart.
Before I write to LINEAR, am I wrong (yep, OK, I know I probably am) but why.
I think with an NEO the sze of everest the energy release is so big it becomes academic how many bits its in.OK, I get that. It’s obvious. No kinetic energy disappears.
However, surely the damage would be likely to be less. The smaller lumps would burn up in the atmosphere; still dangerous but unlikely to cause much damage. If, say, three lumps were big enough to hit the Earth, or perhaps explode near the ground, the detritus would not go as high in the atmosphere as a single object and so no ‘nuclear’ winter nor extinction event.
Also comets, if they are just ice and dirt held together by nothing more than friendship, would react well to being blown apart.
Before I write to LINEAR, am I wrong (yep, OK, I know I probably am) but why.
Mount everest estimated weight: 6 x 10e15 kg
Impact velocity 12km/s (ok this is a guess)
using an approximation i found on Atomic Rockets (interesting web page) that any object moving a 3km/s has kinetic energy equal to the amount reased by the same mass of TNT.
KE goes up with the square of velocity so at 12km/s KE is equivalent to 16 x the mass of TNT being detonated.
so energy released is equivalent the 9.6 x 10e16 kg of TNT being detonated.
or 96 million megatons.
Ouch!
Monty Python said:
Big problem is that nuclear missiles are designed to fly a parabolic trajectory - they have very limited ability to steer outside the atmosphere. You'd also need direct hit - even a near miss would have little effect.
Doesn't always have to hit though.... the shock wave from such an explosion is said to be enough to break up some types of loosely held together rock and ice asteroids.If this option were to be taken I would have thought there would be numerous 'missiles' sent to explode in proximity of an approaching object, raising the probability of success and reducing the size of the broken up segments before they reach earth atmosphere.
But I guess a better approach is always the 'push' option - sending up a powered craft to push the asteroid on to an avoidance course going past the earth's orbit plane.
(This obviously only works on a time-scale whereby we see the approaching asteroid in good time for action).
twin40s said:
I think with an NEO the sze of everest the energy release is so big it becomes academic how many bits its in.
Mount everest estimated weight: 6 x 10e15 kg
Impact velocity 12km/s (ok this is a guess)
using an approximation i found on Atomic Rockets (interesting web page) that any object moving a 3km/s has kinetic energy equal to the amount reased by the same mass of TNT.
KE goes up with the square of velocity so at 12km/s KE is equivalent to 16 x the mass of TNT being detonated.
so energy released is equivalent the 9.6 x 10e16 kg of TNT being detonated.
or 96 million megatons.
Ouch!
Some sort of large net to slow it down before it reaches the ground ?Mount everest estimated weight: 6 x 10e15 kg
Impact velocity 12km/s (ok this is a guess)
using an approximation i found on Atomic Rockets (interesting web page) that any object moving a 3km/s has kinetic energy equal to the amount reased by the same mass of TNT.
KE goes up with the square of velocity so at 12km/s KE is equivalent to 16 x the mass of TNT being detonated.
so energy released is equivalent the 9.6 x 10e16 kg of TNT being detonated.
or 96 million megatons.
Ouch!
Atomic12C said:
Doesn't always have to hit though.... the shock wave from such an explosion is said to be enough to break up some types of loosely held together rock and ice asteroids.
If this option were to be taken I would have thought there would be numerous 'missiles' sent to explode in proximity of an approaching object, raising the probability of success and reducing the size of the broken up segments before they reach earth atmosphere.
But I guess a better approach is always the 'push' option - sending up a powered craft to push the asteroid on to an avoidance course going past the earth's orbit plane.
(This obviously only works on a time-scale whereby we see the approaching asteroid in good time for action).
And how is this shock wave going to travel through a vacuum?If this option were to be taken I would have thought there would be numerous 'missiles' sent to explode in proximity of an approaching object, raising the probability of success and reducing the size of the broken up segments before they reach earth atmosphere.
But I guess a better approach is always the 'push' option - sending up a powered craft to push the asteroid on to an avoidance course going past the earth's orbit plane.
(This obviously only works on a time-scale whereby we see the approaching asteroid in good time for action).
Monty Python said:
And how is this shock wave going to travel through a vacuum?
you got me on my grammar, shock wave obviously not the correct wording, more the matter from the explosion travelling to impact the incoming asteroid - but I guess you already knew that 
It probably wouldn't be a typical war head either - more something designed to send a mass of matter in a particular direction to do most 'damage' to the asteroid.
Atomic12C said:
you got me on my grammar, shock wave obviously not the correct wording, more the matter from the explosion travelling to impact the incoming asteroid - but I guess you already knew that
It probably wouldn't be a typical war head either - more something designed to send a mass of matter in a particular direction to do most 'damage' to the asteroid.
I doubt the shrapnel from a massive explosion would make even a slight dent on a NEO. The only way for an explosive to be effective is to either bury it inside the NEO, or used a shaped charge in contact with the surface. As mentioned earlier, the only realistic way is to adjust its trajectory by some means.It probably wouldn't be a typical war head either - more something designed to send a mass of matter in a particular direction to do most 'damage' to the asteroid.
Dr Jekyll said:
Perhaps it might be easier to move the Earth out of the way.
All you need, the man said, was a long lever.When I told my 7 year old lad that an asteroid had killed all the dinosaurs it was plain that he didn't understand. I chatted to him about it and it turned out he was confused as to why they were all standing together and none of them ducked.
Perhaps that's all we need: a plan for dispersal and keeping an eye out for the one with our name on it.
MKnight702 said:
I think that the Everest comparison is a good one. Imagine if we dropped 10 nukes on Everest, when the dust settled, I would put good money on the mountain looking pretty much unscathed.
If we drilled 10 holes in Everest and buried the nukes then when the dust settled we would probably have broken some chunks off but now you just end up with an smaller Everest surrounded by enormous chunks of rock. It's still going to smart if it lands on your head.
The solution would appear to be to try to alter the trajectory of the asteroid not blow it up. Perhaps nukes could be exploded in its path to try to slow it fractionally or exploded to one side to nudge its path again, only fractionally, but at these sorts of distances fractions matter.
Now all we need to do is identify the object far enough away to divert, find a way to get the nukes to the right place, etc etc.
And, most difficult of all, agree on who is going to pay!If we drilled 10 holes in Everest and buried the nukes then when the dust settled we would probably have broken some chunks off but now you just end up with an smaller Everest surrounded by enormous chunks of rock. It's still going to smart if it lands on your head.
The solution would appear to be to try to alter the trajectory of the asteroid not blow it up. Perhaps nukes could be exploded in its path to try to slow it fractionally or exploded to one side to nudge its path again, only fractionally, but at these sorts of distances fractions matter.
Now all we need to do is identify the object far enough away to divert, find a way to get the nukes to the right place, etc etc.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff